Common tropes in RPG rules that make no sense

I'd merge reflexes with perception and add memory. I also see no point in renaming constitution to health.

>Magic is based on intelligence
>Not a separate Magic stat

Defend this.
You can't.

>Stage magicians don't really use dexterity either, they use intelligence to make clever preparations and rehearse them until perfection.

As someone who did it a little a few years ago...yeah, manual dexterity is a huge part of it. Yes, it's a skill and something you prepare for but someone with terrible hand-eye coordination is pretty fucked trying it.

Assuming that this is true, it makes no sense. Why would a priest need analytical skills? How would a wizard not blow himself up without them? The problem is that wisdom is a wonky attribute as well. If it's the ability to make good judgements as it's described, then it's really a mix of intelligence with intuition.

I dunno, I like how Through the Breach did it. Literally every mental stat has some magic associated with it and even your physical stats can do it if you become a Mage (Intuitive magic rather than learned)

Magic is not a quality inherent in people, it's a science that needs intelligence to master. Pretty simple.

I think it's less dexterity and more precise control over your movements. Same skill jewellers and miniature painters use.

This is all so exhausting: Once in a while someone has this unlikely, hipster approach idea, totally convinced being able to reduce a very complex concept implausibly to some very basic other concept. Dude, I am not even arguing against this...please do stick to your very fine idea "intelligence = memorizing".

>Magic is not a quality inherent in people, it's a science that needs intelligence to master. Pretty simple.

So, if i make a Fighter with high intelligence, he would be able to use magic?

How much intelligence you need? Would a simple peasant be able to use one minor spell taught to him by his father (who in turn learned it from his father, and so on)?

>Game has attributes as a separate thing, which other crap is based on.

Just let me take the individual mechanical end results.

>Because social skills exist as an independent entity already.

That's a pretty huge assumption to make about a non-defined system.

D&D int = memorization.
D&d wis = practical life knowledge learned by experience, perceptiveness, and judgment if character.
There is no d&d stat for logic/reasoning/abstract thought

>We turned to a finer grained, more naturalistic system

yeah, but make grains too fine and it turns into a monstrosity with hal a billion attributes with only cursory distinction.

Personally, i like huge stat boulders, like Body/Skill/Mind - they're abstract enough and cover practically every interaction.

>So, if i make a Fighter with high intelligence, he would be able to use magic?
Obviously he could. But he didn't study magic, as he's a fighter. If you want to use it, then you need to study it, represented by taking levels as a wizard.
>Would a simple peasant be able to use one minor spell taught to him by his father (who in turn learned it from his father, and so on)?
I assume that magic is really like differential calculus. A common peasant is unlikely to solve even a very simple equation without a background in math. Then again, you do get geniuses who learn high level math while still at school, but those are the exception.

>Why would a priest need analytical skills?
You have no idea of the role priests occupied in pre-modern society, right? Or the role Jesuits still occupy in many societies today?

>How would a wizard not blow himself up without them?
Why wouldn't he? A lot of wizards are basically mad scientists lacking in common sense that would rather turn themselves into dinosaurs than cure cancer.

There's magic based on WIS and CHA too. I do wish there was a separate magic stat though.

You're wrong.

>Intelligence measures mental acuity, accuracy of recall, and the ability to reason.

>Wisdom describes a character’s willpower, common sense, perception, and intuition.

>I assume that magic is really like differential calculus.
Druidic magic.
Divine magic.

Those don't really come from study but from belief and harmony with an entity/element.

>You have no idea of the role priests occupied in pre-modern society, right?
Propaganda and lies. The rare monks who made scientific contribution were really scientists shoehorned into a religious role by a society where learning was controlled by religion.
>A lot of wizards are basically mad scientists lacking in common sense
You're missing the point. Common sense is not a cognitive ability of your brain. It's a learned pattern of thinking that helps you get by in a certain environment. Mad scientists have genius level cognitive abilities, or else instead of whatever crazy machines they use with a lack of common sense they would invent a stick.

We're obviously discussing Intelligence based magic now.

Your fedora sir !

Also administration, charity, hospital, teaching all discipline (including mathematics), ...

Well, to summarise, they were the only scholar and the only one who cared about the socila needs.

in d&d though these magics seem basically the same, with only the source differing and some of the effects you can get. otherwise everything seems to work the same way; you say some words, wave your hands around, and maybe use a scrap of something or other.

Is this going to be one guy pretending all RPGs are D&D 3.5 and its countless shitty spinoffs?

All because the church usurped learning and controlled it by killing any theories that contradicted muh Thomas Aquinas.

There's no need to pretend, D&D with spin-offs account for a huge majority of RPG players.

The same is with wisdom.

Yet controversial theories were born and diffused in the Universities, controlled by Church.

Also "usurped". If nobody does it, it's not usurpation.
Do you want a governement controled school or no school at all ?

Good lord, watch your level of faggotery! 3-attribute-oversimplification is worse than anything else... True, no need for a system with 13 stats, but there is an actual benefit from thinking the D&D system over, if quality can be raised.

Isn't reducing it to 3 basically "thinking it over"?

There is a cutoff somewhere. Why not reduce it to a single one: "potence", "might" or something? I have yet to be made familiar with a system of 3 attributes that does not oversimplify. These abominations just have no depth. They do not feel right in terms of the modelling reality to a certain depth in a adequate way.

so we're looking for a sweet spot, which'll probably vary between designers.

>3-attribute-oversimplification is worse than anything else

it serves its purpose, doesn't turn character creation into a hot mess and if you want more granularity you can always use skills.

Fite me, fgt.

Why have attributes at all? What do they offer that isn't solved by having skills?

>These abominations just have no depth.
They have EXACTLY as much depth as any other set of attributes, what they lack in comparison is width.

>Why not reduce it to a single one: "potence", "might" or something?

Because that leaves no variety. Even 2 stat systems can work, see: Lasers and Feelings clones. I can't think of a way a 1 stat system could work without having that stat be just your level and the system otherwise stat-less, or using it in a way that makes it actually 2 stat (such as using it as a slider).

>They do not feel right in terms of the modelling reality to a certain depth in a adequate way.

Since when is modelling reality a purpose of an RPG? Adequate according to whom?

You sound like someone stuck in "simulationist" mindset with perceptions heavily colored by your exposure to D&D.

Simulationist should just buy costume and fight each other in a forrest.

>There is a cutoff somewhere.
I think three is a pretty reasonable cutoff. It describes what can you solve with body/strength, what can you solve with learned abilities/reflexes and what can you solve with thinking/planning.
>Why not reduce it to a single one: "potence", "might" or something?
See previous point.
>I have yet to be made familiar with a system of 3 attributes that does not oversimplify.
Name them, i'm genuinely interested here.
>These abominations just have no depth.
The granularity of stats does not equal depth. What can your character do and how they can affect outcome does.
>They do not feel right in terms of the modelling reality to a certain depth in a adequate way.
"to a certain depth in a adequate way" is a very ambigious saying, but i'd argue that main role of the system is to provide adequate environment for characters and setting interact, not model the setting. But i get the feeling that you mean the same and just prefer more stats in your system Which is fine, i'm curretly playing both Ryuutama and Shadowrun and like both.

Even if quantifying all these characteristics is possible (I personally believe it is), I don't think anyone believes it could be represented in just 4 or 6 or even 20 stats.

That may be the fluff. What I describe is what they actually do, mechanically.

Wisdom is the actual bullshit stat. Wisdom is literally just applied intelligence and knowledge. It's the kind of thing that should NEVER have a stat of its own. It's like "making correct decisions" was a stat.

>Simulationist should just buy costume and fight each other in a forrest.

They'd never get to fighting because they'd sperg out how someones costume or equipment is not realistic.

>Since when is modelling reality a purpose of an RPG?

Since the very beginning.

Why would you even need rules, except to form a framework of the game's reality?

user, no.
You're not supposed to funpost THIS early into the argument.

>Why would you even need rules, except to form a framework of the game's reality?

Rules don't have (and can't) to _model_ reality, they just have to set the rules of how the characters can engage with the setting.

To ensure equality between the players and the world.
And to ensure balance and equilibre.

Not to simulate the normal world.
Or else I'll make my player do taxes and chores if they don't want to have trouble. And I won't allow them to be fight dragon, only thug.

>Rules can't _model_ reality

I legitimately have no idea what could possibly give you that mindset. What do you think something like "characters are defined by attributes and skills" is, or "to accomplish thing X, roll __________" other than a description of the game's reality? Almost every conceivable rule that's not purely a metagame rule models the game's reality.

>Not to simulate the normal world.
>Or else I'll make my player do taxes and chores if they don't want to have trouble.

Why does your mind immediately jump to taxes? Shouldn't the first thing that comes to your mind be physics? The inherent limitations that dictate what's possible at all and what's not? The ones that, without which, nothing in anything would have any meaning or coherence?

>the game's reality?
The game has a setting, not a reality and you didn't say "game's reality" you said reality.

Nah, he definitely said games reality. It's right here.

>Magic is not a quality inherent in people

>LaughingSorcererers.jpg

You'd think so, I mean that's what most game mechanics model, the physics and metaphysics of the game world, which in turn set the tone of the campaign. For instance, if bludgeoning damage is inherently non-lethal, that gives you a sortof FMA tone where you can throw large heavy objects at people without killing them.

How well they model the game reality you're going for is a different question entirely.

That's obvious. I was triying to be as boring as possible.
But yes, if you strictly simulate real world physics, the game can become boring quickly in some setting. To begin with, a lot of creature stop to fly.

And if that's the type of reality your game is designed to model, then that's what you want.

Such as for a historical campaign.

We were talking about DnD and magic.
Obviously you don't want people jumping 6 meters in a realistic simulation.

Exactly.

And in a game designed to simulate D&Ds world, flight is commonly available, as is magic.

It simulates a world with those things.

This is just a bait thread

Charisma vs. Social Skills is dependent on if you want social challenges decided by rolling against an attribute or a specific skill.
Both have merit.
I prefer Social Skills.

>Stage magicians don't really use dexterity either
But this is fucking retarded.

In my homebrew, I created three attributes of Mind, Body, and Spirit.
Those can further be broken down as say, Body into Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution.
Dexterity can further be broken down into Manual, Physical, and Speed.
Thus, if a player felt like Min/Maxing, they could have a character with an extremely high Body score, yet was a slow, weak, sickly, and clumsy Street Magician with extraordinary Manual Dexterity who can Slight of Hand nearly anything and pick a lock faster than others could use a key.
But most times, a character wouldn't break down Dexterity at all.

It's very subtle.

>This is just a bait thread
>It's very subtle.

>t. uncharismatic nerd who wants people to think he has charisma

>they use intelligence
>I have a 150 IQ, how is it possible for me to fail at anything in this game when the retards succeed uwu

Is this a copypasta? It is now.

>All because the Jews usurped learning and controlled it by killing any theories that contradicted muh Karl Marx.

This is what you sound like. Avoid /pol/ for a week and sort yourself out in the meantime.

>OP has no right to exist. He's not got an attribute that has independent existence in real life. OP is really a combination of a lack of social skills, intelligence and physical fitness (constitution).

This is perfect.

>and physical fitness

Toppest kek.

>(including mathematics)

I still lol at that ancient greek philosopher who wrote about how a goddess granted him the basic theoroms of logic in a vision.

There's no real reason to have Strength and Constitution as separate stats. Humans don't have "offense" and "defense" qualities. Muscles reinforce the body and bone and make a person more durable by nature, and working out builds stamina and general fortitude, so they're intrinsically intertwined. There's no logical way to have a high STR low CON individual. What would they look like? Beefy and powerful but falls over with a poke, like a cartoon character? It's nonsense.

BUT HEY GAMES ARE GAMES AND NOT PERFECT SIMULATIONS OF REALITY EVER THOUGHT ABOUT THAT

>Wisdom is the actual bullshit stat. Wisdom is literally just applied intelligence and knowledge.
It's not. Wisdom is insight and intuition, deeper understanding of how things work from experience. Say, character from Cthulhu Mythos could have high Wisdom in the setting from witnessing inhuman beings and cosmic truths.

Maybe someone with a glass jaw?

The usual argument is "but then how do I make a weightlifter who gets out of breath running up the stairs, or a marathon runner who can hardly lift shit?", but imo those are better handled as skills/specializations/flaws/etc.

Don't forget that it also governs shit repated to perception for some reason.

I mean, okay, a druid/ranger having sharp eyes/ears I1m totally fine with, but why the cleric?

>Common tropes in RPG rules that make no sense
>complains about D&D
Not technically wrong, but you're still a fag.

Agreed. The thing about charisma is that it only contributes to your looks because a person with strong charisma can look like they've been thrown through a meat grinder and carry it with an awe-inspiring dignity, meanwhile you can find people ripped and handsome as fuck who just seem pathetic.

Common, but not universal, thankfully.
>Humans can have dozens of ethnicities inspired from real world culture or original which only have gameplay impact if you want them too
>Any other race has a singular culture and racial variants differ wildly in abilities.
>there's no heavy cultural overlap between races which are allied and/or can/do heavily interbreed.

But strength and stamina(constitution) are almost independent in real life. Look at sprinters vs marathon runners.

Strength and speed are the ones that should be the same stat.

The high str low con is the guy who can deadlift 500lbs but gets winded if he runs for more than a minute.

>Just about any rule that exists for "game balance"
>If you are class X, you can't use Y, no matter fucking what
>Chainmail is light and doesn't affect your movement

>meanwhile you can find people ripped and handsome as fuck who just seem pathetic

Envious fat fuck spotted

The stronger you are the stronger your chin is assuming you improve the muscles related to it.

Here's the (You) you wanted by posting that bait image, I'm sure it'll make the occasional delusional ghetto nigger feel better.

Charisma is a separate ability score because it's easier to keep track of than various factors that come in from three other scores as you suggested. This also means that someone can specifically specialize in it if they wish to. The actual consideration and application of other skills and scores regarding social factors, manipulation, etc. fall under one of the duties of the DM/GM, whose function is to serve as the referee and moderator.

Charisma exists because measuring your leadership ability and influence over others was important in early D&D -- dungeon crawling was more like mounting an expedition in that you needed people to carry torches and treasure and pack the wagon and so forth, because you'd be hauling a lot out of the dungeon if you were successful, and having more hands to hold spears was a good way to help insure that success. Also negotiating with various tribes of humanoids to avoid fighting was a good idea, especially when there's a lair with 114 orcs in it somewhere near the dungeon.
When gameplay changed, especially when it became more focused on combat as the central element of the game, charisma became less useful.
It's kind of like how dexterity isn't really dexterity, it's a placeholder for "things thieves are good at."

He makes a point. Not all good looking people are likeliest or have a good personality.

>Dexterity isn't useful.
That's a new one.

Usually you hear that dexterity is too good.

>(Chinese students are a great example)

>t.polack

Reminder that evidence points to East Asians being more intelligent than Euros.

>t. sjw

Reminder that Obama isn't actually Black and was a bleh president like Bush Jr.

I didn't say that, I said dexterity isn't "dexterity," it's an amalgam of speed and manual dexterity and nimbleness and stuff. IE, the things that thieves are good at.

/pol/ is a christian board.

also what's the estimated death toll for communism?

>X is a combination of things, therefore it doesn't real
gee bill I wonder what abstraction is